SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
From The Verge:
Google didn't violate labor laws by firing engineer James Damore for a memo criticizing the company's diversity program, according to a recently disclosed letter from the US National Labor Relations Board. The lightly redacted statement is written by Jayme Sophir, associate general counsel of the NLRB's division of advice; it dates to January, but was released yesterday, according to Law.com. Sophir concludes that while some parts of Damore's memo were legally protected by workplace regulations, "the statements regarding biological differences between the sexes were so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive as to be unprotected."
Damore filed an NLRB complaint in August of 2017, after being fired for internally circulating a memo opposing Google's diversity efforts. Sophir recommends dismissing the case; Bloomberg reports that Damore withdrew it in January, and that his lawyer says he's focusing on a separate lawsuit alleging discrimination against conservative white men at Google. NLRB records state that its case was closed on January 19th.
There are White House Staff positions open, I hear.
Previously: Google Fires Author of Divisive Memo on Gender Differences
Google Cancels "Town Hall" Due to Leaks
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Sulla on Tuesday February 20 2018, @04:39PM (2 children)
Diamond v. Diehr seems to be the "but now with a computer" copyright, copyrightable API is pretty self explaining. I had no idea caring about the common person being able to access good products from honest dealers was conservative fee-feels. Good knowing leftists are aligning themselves with big business more and more every day.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 4, Insightful) by aristarchus on Tuesday February 20 2018, @08:59PM
Are you, or have you ever been, pro-business, Sulla?
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by linuxrocks123 on Wednesday February 21 2018, @09:26AM
I cited the wrong case: Diamond v. Diehr is a Supreme Court -- not CAFC -- case that's actually pretty reasonable. State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group and similar cases were what I meant to refer to. Sorry about that.
Additionally, the level of discourse by GP is rather disappointing, and also misses the point. Damore's state law right to criticize Google's affirmative action programs is also a progressive activist's state law right to advocate for more aggressive ones.
And, if you actually read (or, as I did, skim) Damore's (rather long) essay, he's not some sort of Nazi. He appears to believe -- without, in my opinion, sufficient evidence -- that there is a significant biological cause behind the observed sex differences in personality and intelligence statistics, and that it's not all or mostly all environmental factors. He also obviously believes that people should be allowed to demonstrate their abilities as individuals and not be pre-judged because of their gender.
Is that sexist? Well, if it is, anthropologists are going to have a hard time doing research. My understanding is that we don't know what role, if any, biology plays in sex differences in human personality and intelligence.
Could it be near-zero? Sure.
Could it be significant? Sure.
If it's significant, will it cause some people to freak the fuck out and try to kill the messengers? Apparently, yes.
If it's significant, will some people try to use it to advance disgustingly sexist policies and practices? Of course, and they need to be opposed for the right reason, which is that people are people, and not averages.